nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

These words were important enough to be included in both the fifth and fourteenth amendments. In the fourteenth amendment it is worded slightly different.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

These words mean very little in modern day “Progressive Wisconsin”. First let’s define “due process.

“The essential elements of due process of law are notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the right to defend in an orderly proceeding.” Fiehe v. R.E. Householder Co., 125 So. 2, 7 (Fla. 1929).

“To dispense with notice before taking property is likened to obtaining judgement without the defendant having ever been summoned.” Mayor of Baltimore vs. Scharf, 54 Md. 499, 519 (1880).

“An orderly proceeding wherein a person is served with notice, actual or constructive, and has an opportunity to be heard and to enforce and protect his rights before a court having power to hear and determine the case. Kazubowski v. Kazubowski, 45 Ill.2d 405, 259, N.E.2d 282, 290.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.

“Due Process of law implies and comprehends the administration of laws equally applicable to all under established rules which do not violate fundamental principles of private rights, and in a competent tribunal possessing jurisdiction of the cause and proceeding upon justice. It is founded upon the basic principle that every man shall have his day in court, and the benefit of the general law which proceeds only upon notice and which hears and considers before judgement is rendered.” State v. Green, 232 S.W.2d 897, 903 (Mo. 1950).
“Phrase means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property or of any right granted him by statute, unless matter involved first shall have been adjudicated against him upon trial conducted according to established rules regulating judicial proceedings, and it forbids condemnation without a hearing, Pettit v. Penn., La.App., 180 So.2d 66, 69.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.
“Due Process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgement upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.
“Aside from all else, ‘due process’ means fundamental fairness and substantial justice. Vaughn v. State, 3 Tenn.Crim.App. 54, 456 S.W.2d 879, 883.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 5d

Now to my story.

In the spring of 2007 I had a house fire. Shortly after the fire the mayor (Gary Bradley) Informed me that he had my house condemned. I told him that I would fight it and consulted an attorney who informed my that they could not do that without serving me so I waited to be served.  Winter came and was not served.  The following spring I was served notice that if I did not work on the house it would be condemned.
Because of the house fire the value should have been reduced and because of the actions of the mayor I was denied the use of my property so I felt that should result in a further reduction. I went to the treasurers office on numerous occasions to complain about this. In the summer of 2011 I learned that the supreme court ruled the law unconstitutional and that assessments could be appealed to the courts.  I sent a letter to the treasurer requesting a hearing on the matter and she forwarded it to the appropriate people. No hearing took place.
On October 1, I was served notice to vacate within 30 days, I was never served notice on the issuance of the tax deed just a notice to vacate.  I refused to leave and told them I would fight it.  The first week of November I was served with an eviction notice which I am currently fighting.. I was blind at the time and could not afford an Attorney.  Through a power of Attorney I offered to pay the taxes and they made it clear to her that they didn’t care about the taxes they just wanted to seize the property. The plaintiff filed a Motion in Limine to suppress the fact that proper notice was not served and the judge granted the motion based on various parts of section 75 of the Wisconsin Statutes.  I filed a motion to vacate based on 75.12 that clearly states that  75.12  Deed, notice of application for.
(1)  No tax deed shall be issued on any lot or tract of land 4 to a tax certificate unless a written notice of application for tax deed shall have been served upon the owner
And 75.12 goes on further to state that that section supersedes all other laws.  75.12(7) (7) This section shall supersede all provisions of law, including the provisions of any city charter, which are in conflict with it.

A hearing was set for August 13th on the motion on August 3 I received notice that the judge
refused to hold a hearing on this issue so I immediately filed paperwork for an appeal. One and a half days latter the sheriffs department locked me out of my home.  So much for “DUE PROCESS”. I AM NOW OFFICIALLY HOMELESS!

When I was growing up we trusted the government to do the right thing. When the housing crisis happened they passed laws making it harder to foreclose on property, yet they passed laws making it easier to steal your property. No notice,no hearing, no due process in any way shape manner or form. A bank is required to serve you notice, there is a mandatory hearing but not so with the government. The tax deed is deemed valid even though it is issued by the same group stealing it THE GOVERNMENT!

When I was a kid I was raised to trust the government.  They were expected to uphold and enforce the laws not suppress evidence that showed that they violated the very laws that they swore to uphold.  The words of Ronald Reagan are more relevent today.